On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 14:34 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:17:45PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > 1. Fix scott's patch repository: Ubuntu needs to keep a copy of the > > > original Debian source package used to create their packages so that > > > Ubuntu can always generate a useful patch without relying on > > > snapshot.debian.net (which is unreliable and is not officially supported > > > by the Debian project). Scott announced the "breakage" on debian-devel but > > > it hasn't been fixed yet: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/02/msg00798.html > > The repository has moved to http://patches.ubuntu.com and Matt Zimmerman > > told me it should be fixed. Scott, can you officially confirm this? I > > would suggest a follow-up to your initial mail on debian-devel... > > It looks a lot more sane now but previously patches were split out into > packaging differences, upstream differences, and branding differences > (where possible). > > This was a lot more useful than the current situation which seems to > just have one large diff again. Not to say that making this large diff > available /isn't/ useful just that if the old code could be resurrected > to split it out further more people might take it on. > The main problem was that the splitting out code didn't actually work, and just generated a random set of four or five patches. I can restore the code is people really think it was useful, but the general consensus from every Debian person I spoke to was that they ignored those files because they weren't helpful. Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@canonical.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part